linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: Fix a compile error in selftests/kvm/rseq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YuxZO/ktPT8ug8zT@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 23:41:47 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Jinrong Liang <ljr.kernel@...il.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: Fix a compile error in
 selftests/kvm/rseq_test.c

On Wed, Aug 03, 2022, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 04:10:53PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 09:58:51PM +0800, Jinrong Liang wrote:
> > > > My ldd version is (GNU libc) 2.28, and I get a compilation error in this case.
> > > > But I use another ldd (Ubuntu GLIBC 2.31-0ubuntu9.2) 2.31 is compiling fine.
> > > > This shows that compilation errors may occur in different GNU libc environments.
> > > > Would it be more appropriate to use syscall for better compatibility?
> > > 
> > > OK, it's a pity, but no big deal to use syscall().
> > 
> > Ya, https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/gettid.2.html says:
> > 
> >   The gettid() system call first appeared on Linux in kernel 2.4.11.  Library
> >   support was added in glibc 2.30.
> > 
> > But there are already two other instances of syscall(SYS_gettid) in KVM selftests,
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c even adds a _gettid() wrapper.
> 
> Ha! And I found four more in selftests...
> 
> testing/selftests/powerpc/include/utils.h
> testing/selftests/proc/proc.h
> testing/selftests/rseq/param_test.c
> testing/selftests/sched/cs_prctl_test.c
> 
> and even more in tools...

Ha, and tools/testing/selftests/sched/cs_prctl_test.c even has the GLIBC crud.

#if __GLIBC_PREREQ(2, 30) == 0
#include <sys/syscall.h>
static pid_t gettid(void)
{
	return syscall(SYS_gettid);
}
#endif

> > So rather than having to remember (or discover) to use syscall(SYS_gettid), I wonder
> > if it's possible to conditionally define gettid()?  E.g. check for GLIBC version?
> > Or do
> > 
> >   #define gettid() syscall(SYS_gettid)
> > 
> > so that it's always available and simply overrides the library's gettid() if it's
> > provided?
> 
> Sounds good to me. Now the question is where to put it? kvm_util.h,
> test_util.h, or maybe we should create a new header just for stuff
> like this?

tools/include/uapi/linux/syscall.h?

Kind of dirty, but not thaaaat dirty.